February 9, 2010
When 'denial' is a 'pragmatic' option
At the Democratic National Committee fundraiser the other day, President Obama illustrated the need for healthcare "reform" by using the death of one of his campaign workers from breast cancer. He gives us the gratuitous detail that she insisted on being buried in her Obama T-shirt. The audience took that as a punch line and laughed, but Obama looked at them sternly: being buried, or cremated, in your Obama T-shirt is no laughing matter.
You can read more details about Melanie Shouse on the Aggressive Progressive Web site ("Ideas. Inspiration. Action"):
So when the lump came, denial seemed the most pragmatic option. When diagnosis finally followed, the cancer had spread through her body to bone, lungs and liver. It was Stage 4 breast cancer.
At this point, Melanie had some coverage, in the form of Missouri's Medicaid program - a public option, if you will. And she got better, for a spell. But then her private carrier denied coverage for a treatment her oncologist had recommended.
"Denial seemed the most pragmatic option." What an artful sentence. So now denial is a "pragmatic option" when dealing with a lump in the breast? "Pragmatic" is a nice touch here, shows how down to earth, how practical, how, well, pragmatic liberals are. They demand solutions that work! Except, in this case, Melanie's brand of healthcare reform turned out to be anything but pragmatic.
And what was the treatment that she was denied? The implication is that it would have saved her life. What would it have cost? What are the one-year outcomes for that treatment at her stage of illness? The five-year outcomes? Would it have given her another month? Two? Her private carrier is excoriated, but why no criticism for Medicaid? It would appear that the government denied her coverage for the treatment as well. Details are sorely wanted, details that Obama, and Aggressive Progressive, feel no need to provide.
Henry Percy is the nom de guerre for a technical writer living in Arizona. He may be reached at saler.50d@gmail.com.
To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99
Login
Subscribe / Change PwdAd Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Massachusetts vs. the Second Amendment
- Florida Voter Fraud Case Could Overturn U.S. House Race
- Not Your Grandfather’s Foreign Aid
- Christian Morality, Migration, And The Good Samaritan
- Shaken, Not Stirred: The James Bond Complex
- Who is the Real Unelected President?
- Democrats Prepare for the Big House
- Democrat Hypocrisy on Born-Alive Care
- Government Downsizing and the Left’s Instinctive Outcry
- Trump is Closing the Border. Now What About Legal Immigration?
Blog Posts
- Trump and Hegseth are killing it
- Uganda upset at lack of condoms, lubricants — blames USAID funding freeze
- Why would anyone be a Democrat?
- Protecting the Second Amendment is protecting the First
- A tale of two tax plans
- Another case of demand for racism exceeding supply
- Corruption in Chicago’s courts
- Memo suggests the City of San Diego's government is loaded with illegals
- Buttigieg insinuates that Trump’s IG firing spree has something to do with promoting ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’
- Why is Tom Cotton blocking a Trump DOD nominee?
- The German central bank agrees with President Trump!
- Trump must take on China’s vape smugglers
- CBS's Margaret Brennan scolds Marco Rubio on free speech by suggesting it caused the Holocaust
- Four magical words
- Maybe we could ask Al Gore, John Kerry, and the UN to explain why we should go along with the Paris Climate Agreement?